What should the society we want to build after the referendum look like? By Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Margaret Curran.
.
Margaret Curran MP (Labour, Glasgow East) is the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland
The day after Scotland goes to the polls to decide whether to go it alone or to remain a part of the United Kingdom, politicians of all parties will sit down, take stock and decide where to go next. Reflecting on how we want that day to look and the discussions we’d like to be having – regardless of the outcome – can help us establish the debate we should be having now and the questions we should be asking.
For me, thinking about this illuminates two of the central questions we are grappling with in this debate now. Firstly, what choice should face the Scottish people and secondly, what should the society we want to build after the referendum look like?
On the first question, until recently, I thought we knew the answer. Those of us in the Labour Party who fought for and have defended devolution since the very start of our political lives wanted a strong Scottish Parliament inside a modern United Kingdom.
Those in the SNP wanted independence, and to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. That was, after all, their founding purpose and the cause around which their members and supporters rallied. Now, only weeks into the referendum campaign, it looks like we’re dealing with something wholly different.
Instead of a clear choice between in or out of the UK, the SNP are moving the goalposts. ‘Independence’ for them now means keeping the currency, keeping the Queen, keeping the flag, staying British, asking a foreign country to regulate our banks, set our interest rates.
Do the SNP see England as a foreign country already? 2 Jul 2012
As if there wasn’t enough confusion already, we’re now told that Alex Salmond wants a third option on the ballot paper – “devo-max”, a brand without any details.
The second issue we should reflect on – the kind of society we want to build in Scotland – should be the one we keep our minds focussed on as we progress through this campaign. We’re not having a debate about the future of our nation for the sake of it, we’re having a debate because at stake are two competing futures for Scotland’s existence.
For me and my colleagues in the Labour Party, our belief in the United Kingdom isn’t borne out of nostalgia. I know that Scotland has always needed a strong voice in the UK. That’s why the Labour Party backed devolution and legislated for it days after coming into office in 1997. That’s why we introduced devolution. And that’s why we have carried on developing devolution and passed more powers and responsibility to the Scottish parliament, to get the balance right across the UK as a whole.
We have always had a vision for a strong, prosperous Scotland sitting inside a United Kingdom where we pool sovereignty with three other nations to protect our shared interests. It is a state of affairs that has become more, not less, relevant in an interconnected and interdependent world.
For the SNP however, the kind of society they want to build is unclear. As my recent Parliamentary Questions revealed, SNP ministers in Edinburgh haven’t had a single conversation with their counterparts in London about the consequences of independence. On issues as important to people as the economy, their jobs, their benefits or the nation’s security, not a single letter or email has passed between Scottish and UK ministers.
For a party that has waited generations to be in a position to deliver on its founding principle, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that the SNP no longer believe they can convince the Scottish people of independence. They have simply given up.
The first minister says it’s the only thing he’s campaigning for, but from his desperation for a third option, however woolly, to his lack of interest in opening up a discussion with the UK government on what happens the day after independence, I can only conclude he’s bottled it.
58 Responses to “Salmond must stop moving the goalposts on Scottish independence referendum”
Anonymous
An independent Scotland will be due 8.4% of the assets of the current UK state during settlement negotiations. This is the Scottish population share (you could also use % GDP but you come up with a similiar figure) and this precedent was set in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia where both new states were jointly responsible.
Included within this will be 8.4% of the Bank of England assets (eg gold, foreign currency reserves etc).
If the new state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland wishes to ‘cut off their nose to spite their face’ and withhold from any negotiations regarding Scotland’s share off UK assets then Scotland will also take no debts.
Another precedent is set already with Russia claiming to be the sole sucessor state of the USSR and they claimed all assets of the former USSR but also gained all the debts.
Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine etc all started with a clean slate and that is fine with me.
An independent Scotland starting with a clean slate and no external debts or assets within EFTA and pegging a Scottish currency against the £, $ or Euro would actually be my preference.
Meanwhile the rUK while the rUK takes all the >£1 trillion debt of the current UK debt while losing the ‘backstop’ of the >£1 trillion resource in Scottish North sea oil within the Sterling zone.
Anonymous
The YES Campaign is made up of people from all over Scotland who wish to see their country have full control over all the internal and external affairs in a sovereign Parliament at Holyrood.
This includes Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems voters dissolutioned by the “Union above all” attitude of their party. You can also add to that supporters of the SNP, SSP, Greens, SDA as well as various independents and ordinary people of no political persuasion who “agree that Scotland should be an independent country”.
Independence is the normal state for a country and an archiac and redundant incorporating political is abnormal in this day and age.
Anonymous
Countries themselves are artificial constructs which have only matters beyond the 1% for a relatively small slice of Human history.
Moreover, I expect your stand against the EU.
Anonymous
A percentage of assets close to that, yes. But NOT any form of *ongoing* claim to the currency.
Anonymous
Scotland has joint responsibility for Sterling and GBP (Great British Pound).
A Sterling zone can be negotitated during the transition period to ensure stability for the markets and economies.
Should the new state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland wish to “cut off their nose to spite their face” then a new Scottish currency can be pegged to Sterling (like Ireland had after independence) or indeed breaking ties with the rUK and pegging a Scottish currency to the euro (like Denmark) or the dollar (like many states throughout the world).
With Scotland removed from a Sterling zone you would then see the value of Sterling plummet and a doubling of the rUK’s balance of payments so good luck with that.
“A new report has shown that Scotland’s oil and gas sector boosted the UK balance of payments by £40bn. When the £6bn proceeds from the industry’s supply chain are included the total would have doubled the UK’s balance of payments’ deficit.
The SNP has welcomed the publication of the latest 2012 economic report from Oil & Gas UK presenting it as evidence that there is considerable attraction for the rest of the UK if an independent Scotland were to be form a new ‘sterling zone’ with the rest of the UK.
The Nationalists cited the news that Scotland’s oil and gas sector was responsible for £17 billion in tax and national insurance revenues which went to the UK Treasury this year as underlining their case.”
http://www.scottishtimes.com/westminster_depends_on_scotland_cut_deficit